Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true; the description reinforces this by explicitly saying it 'opens nothing by itself', which prevents an agent from assuming side effects. It also discloses the output shape (screens, buttons, fields), though it omits whether the steps are generic or tailored and gives no latency or failure-mode context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The behavioral point is front-loaded and precise, but the first sentence carries boilerplate about ChatGPT/Claude/any AI agent, and the closing note about Teamleader's API v2 and the 'checked 20 Oct 2026' date is informational trivia that does not help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no input schema, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition covers what an agent needs: what it returns, that it is read-only, and how to act on the result via browser tools. The remaining gap is that it does not say the steps are generic in the absence of any deal identifier.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to explain and a baseline of 4 applies. The description does not address the obvious consequence of zero parameters - that no deal or target phase is identified, so the returned steps must be generic - which is the one piece of parameter-adjacent meaning it could have added.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource (move a deal to a phase) and immediately clarifies that the tool does not perform the move but returns step-by-step UI instructions. That clarification is what distinguishes it from a real action tool, though the name alone would mislead an agent into expecting a mutation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear handoff rule: this tool returns guidance, then the agent executes with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Teamleader Cloud Browser. However, it never says when to pick this over the sibling cotlet_app_guide, nor what to do if the user has no browser session open, leaving the routing decision partly implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.